tv CNN Tonight With Don Lemon CNN April 4, 2017 12:00am-1:01am PDT
new accusations of harassment at fox news. this is cnn tonightmism i'm don lemon. fox superstar bill o'reilly at the the sister of a sexual harassment scandal. they agreed not to go forward with their accusations. plus the protester who is suing president trump. she says he incited a riot during one of his campaign rallies leading to an assault by campaign supporters.
a judge saying she may have a case to all of this. is fox news the bill cosby of corporate america? that's what lisa bloom said. she's representing wendy walsh and accuses o'reilly of sexual harassment and retaliation and they both join me now. thank you so much for coming on. >> thank you. >> so, wendy. let's be honest about this. we've known each other for years but the first i learned about this encounter was in the new york times this weekend and i was flabbergasted. tell me what happened. >> in a nutshell i was asked to be on his show as a regular guest and three weeks into it i got an exciting e-mail from his secretary saying that mr. o'reilly is coming to los angeles and he'd love to have dinner with you and i said absolutely. because i wanted to talk to him about my career prospects. often being brought on as a guest is an audition process and
i wanted to be a paid contributor. he brought it up, says roger ail is a good friend of his and they plan on making me a contributor. the dinner went on to include small talk about life, love, etc. and at the end of the dinner, he simply said let's get out of here and he walked to the right towards the hotel rooms and i walked to the left towards the bar and there was this awkward moment where we couldn't find each other and he caught up with me and said no, no come back to my suite. i said i can't do that. and he became hostile and spent some time weaning me off the show and getting his executive producer to cancel me. >> so did you continue speaking with him that night, right? >> yes. so we went in the bar and complained the soda water i ordered was too expensive and my purse was really ugly. i guess he --
>> so that's how he treated you for the rest of the evening. were you ever on the show after that evening, wendy? >> oh, yes, he made a point of keeping me on. and i did what every woman does. we try to save the gig. we try to stroke the dog, as it is and i should tell you that the fox released some of my cringe worthy suck up emails today because i thought if i can just be professional, polite, talk through his assistant, then he'll understand i'm not a threat, i'm not going to sue him and he will give me the job he promised. >> so, okay we'll get to the hemails because i have one of those e-mails. when he said he wanted you to go back to his suite, what did he want? >> you know, i wish i knew his mind, what he really meant. maybe he just wanted privacy to talk to me about my career prospects but that's very
inappropriate and maybe he's just clueless. in my case, i'm a grown up woman. it's not the first time i've been to this rodeo and when he said do you think i'm going to attack you? i said you know we're both raises teenage daughters. bill, don't you think we should model good choices for them, hoping to connect on that parent level. anyway, we went to the bar and he became angry and hostile. >> have a couple more questions for wendy. this incident was in early 2013. you mentioned the email. on september 4, 2013, you wrote an e-mail saying quote, i want to send a thank you to mr. o'reilly and the staff on all the help in promoting my book specifically please convey to the boss that i am deeply grateful for his professional
kindness. his media power is immeasurable -- >> it went onto to me asking in that e-mail. >> why were you praising him after he treated you in the manner that you described? >> because that's a classic suck up e-mail. this is what you do. this is what plenty of woman do in a situation like this. i didn't even realize that in an applicant e-mail for a job you could be a victim for harassment. let me think everything's going to be okay and i can get the job i want. this has been a story i've told quite openly to many friends for years but a new york times reporter contacted me and i believe it was october. she said she was doing an investigation. there's no way i'm going public.
there's no reason to. i don't need this. and after she bought me all the evidence and showed me how many women were silenced, how many women were under gag orders and can't talk. and the fact she suspected there were other women at fox afraid to come forward. and as my attorney, lisa bloom, said to me you're a grown 50-year-old woman with a big mouth and you can't be brave enough. so, these girls set me up. >> so i heard you say this on cnn yesterday i think on sunday. you called fox news quote the bill cosby of corporate america. what did you mean by that? >> well, there are dozens and dozens of women who have accused bill cosby of sexual assault and dozens of people accusing people at fox news of sexual harassment. roger rails, bill o'reilly,
other executives, and yet it never goes anywhere. it never changes anything. that's why today in my press conference with wendy, who i adore, i called for an independent investigation. the women are driven out or in wendy's case they don't get the job in the first place and the men engaging in this illegal behavior get to continue. it's against the law. we have the righting to complain and we have the right to respect and our jobs really everywhere in america except fox news. so i ask the state department and human rights in new york to do an independent investigation. they have the legal authority to do it, step in and protect the woman who are working there. >> i'm going to give bill o'reilly's statement. i want to ask you about the letter that wendy wrote. i remember similarly, i don't
know if fox released it but i have a copy of wendy's e-mail praising her boss and thanking her boss for giving her an opportunity. >> literally in every case there are e-mails like this. >> what do you say to that, lisa? >> i've been doing sexual harassment cases for many years. they were sexually harassed one day. wendy was trying to get a job. wendy is a professional. wendy has had other men make inappropriate comments to her like i have, and like every woman has. and we just kind of shrug it off. there's nothing wrong with her following up. she was entitled to have a job that she was qualified to have. and let's get real about sexual harassment.
>> so wendy here's bill o'reilly's statement. >> he's saying in part just like other prominent and controversial people, i'm vulnerable to controversial lawsuits. from individuals who want me to pay them to avoid negative press at fox news channel. no one has ever filed a complaint about me with the human resources darmntd. even on the anonymous line. i have put to rest any controversies to spare my children. the worst part of my job is being a target for those who would harm me and my employer, the fox news channel. what's your response for this? >> i hope you're able to hold it together so your children are not affected. but i want to be clear. i'm not after money. i am not suing you. i just want nontoxic work environment for my daughters and their generation.
we need to change the system. the workplace is not a mating marketplace. and if you're looking for aidate, do like everyone else and go on tinder. >> you know, don, it is not true that all powerful men have sick complaints of sexual harassment complaints against them. i'm not aware of any against you or other men who are prominent on television. it's bill o'reilly and not one, or two or three but six sexual harassment complaints. it's not because he's wealthy and famous. it's buzzf ohis behavior. and it's time for him to be held accountable for it. >> my question to you is and tell me if i'm wrong, lisa, isn't it the same thing that cosby's defenders or attorneys says that these women were after his money?
>> very good observation. it's what every wealthy person says. anytime they do, they're always saying it's because i have money, even when somebody like wendy is saying i'm not asking for a dime. that undercuts the whole rich guy argument. he should use some of that money to get some counseling and get some sexual harassment training. and learn how to treat women in the workplace. it's not too late. >> i have to go but how are you? >> i'm good. tomorrow i'm going to go back to life as usual, taking my kid to cheer practice. and i hope other women can use this as a model for what they can do too. >> wendy, thank you, lisa, thank you as well. i appreciate it. >> thank you. i want to bring in a senior reporter from media and politics. so, dylan, you have reached out to fox. do they have anything to say about wendy walsh? >> nothing specifically about
the press conference that she gave today. what they have issue issued, and i want to be very clear this is 21st century fox, not fox news. its a parent company of fox news. what they have done is issued a blanket statement saying they take issues like these seriously and they're continuing to stand behind bill o'reilly. both o'reilly and 21st century fox in their statements made reference to this hot line, this anonymous hot lines-please can call. what you're likely seeing is the set up of a legal defense that accusers had some outlet through the company structure but look, there's a reason that a lot of these women didn't want to pick up an anonymous hotline and it may have something to do with the fact that the former chief executive, roger ails had a litany of sexual harassment allegations against him. and there was a fear thatallies,
might have been even been monitoring their phone calls. >> how many lawsuits are they facing? >> well, they're facing a lot. so you have a new one coming out today to the reporting of npr. you also have -- and i would say this is most significant. you have the federal investigation, which is movering into a grand jury about how 21st century fox handled the complaints that the aers made and whether or not it misled its investors by shielding the money paid out to those accusers. so that was an investigation headed up by greek buhara. thankfully, he's no longer in his position thanks to the president of the united states. but there's a hope to many of fox news today that this
investigation might shed some new light on details involving these sexual harassment claims and therefore might force 21st century fox to take this issue more seriously than it has to date. >> following the new york times report. is it likely other new york advertisers will follow that? >> well, it's hard tasay it's hard to see that not happening. i would caution here. mer siddies benzreassigned its advertising. so it pulled its advertising from the o'reilly factor but not from fox. what you have now is reporters from cnn, reporters from "the new york times" calling up other advertisers saying do you have have a plan? there's effectively public pressure here.
if people start paying attention to who's deciding to stay with o'reilly factor and who's not, we've seen in the past in cases like this, that can sort of be the tipping point where all of a sudden this drip, drip, drip becomes a torrent. >> thank you, dylan. i appreciate it. our legal experts will weigh in right after this. hey allergy muddlers are you one sneeze away from being voted out of the carpool? try zyrtec® it's starts working hard at hour one and works twice as hard when you take it again the next day. stick with zyrtec® and muddle no more®.
multiple women accuse fox news host, bill o'reilly of sexual harassment. here to discuss the author of taking the stand and analyst martin. good evening to all of you. i just spoke to wendy and her attorney and our media correspondent here on cnn. new york times points to five other women who have received settlements or o'reilly for fox totaling $13 million would he still have a job with any other company? >> absolutely not. this is really appalling. you have someone that has caused this company or himself included to pay out $13 mill io to semts. and that doesn't mean you're liable. i've been doing sexual harassment cases for many years and if someone is not
spbl for the conduct, they're willing to go to trial and have an auseication of the issues. one of t one of the settlements was $4 mill k million. the reality is bill o'reilly makes fox a lot of money, so there's a reason to keep him employed. and that's the bottom line. >> alan, you're shaking your head. >> $13 million is chump change. when i was falsely accused i aimmediately had an independent investigation. i got louie free, the head of the fbi. i turned over all my records and i said let the chips fall where they may.
ultimately, of course, the lawyers withdraw, but nonetheless people still believed a false accusation. >> you came on the show after it happened and had your say on this the show. but you fought and came out that you were right and it was false. let me put this statement, because representatives of the fox responded. he resolves those as he regard said as his personal responsibility. his personal responsibility. how can he believe this is his personal responsibility if there's no merit to these claims? >> well, remember, these are all people who knew. so there are gray areas here. in my case, i didn't know, so of course there was no personal responsibility. i think it's in fox's interest to have an independent investigation and let the chips fall where they may.
i think any woman is entitled to investigation. she is not entitled to a presumption of guilt against the person shoo she accuses. or the accused i should say. >> what do you think? >> well, it's a tough situation. i've defended those who have been accused. i've represented those who have been victimized. part of the problem i think in these specific skass, you've probably got a statute of limitations in new york and california that has run already. and in addition to that while the behavior is boorish, it's probably not actionable to the point where you're going to have a lot of damages in this case. wendy's a strong personality. and woman who, as she said, this is just one day. i'll geonto do carpool and everything else. it's earmarks of someone who's moving on. >> i don't think the sexual
harassment didn't occur at the hotel room. the harassment occurred if she in fact lost economic opportunities as a result of saying no, that is the grovelment of the sexual harassment. >> go ahead. >> i think she's not filed a lawsuit and has been very emphatic she is not seeking monetary damages. she is calling for an investigation which would go in and look at the pattern and practice of behavior on the part of o'reilly and makes a determination. we don't have any evidence there's been an investigation. >> the problem. -- we don't have any evidence of that, but i could probably spot you 5-1 that they have done an internal investigation or they have one being done. but nonetheless the problem is that in realtime she didn't make a complaint to the hr hotline or
anything else. and the statute of limitations has probably run. so i understand, but the statute has probably run. >> i would agree with you on the statute, but these hot lines. so many women never contact the hot lines. there's $13 million paid out in settlements. need we talk about a hotline? >> the last person i'm going to contact is my employer. i'm going to talk to someone that i hired or get advice from an outside party. i'm going to write to my company. >> when bill o'reilly to have the press conference -- he did one very smart thing. he hired clinton's lawyer, a liberal democrat lawyer, a brilliant, brilliant crisis strategist.
and i suspect we're going to see a very, very good defense put forward. >> so this didn't happen, mark, in a vacuum because there's so many allegations at fox news. roger ails, they sent him away after he built the fox channel because of so many accusations. and i think there's others. but does this not point to a culture possibility? >> mind you the prior incidents and the prior allegations if you believe what's printed about it, yes, obviously. and if you're going to make the point if there's current allegations within the statute of limitations, then you're going to make the point this is a petri dish for harassment. but not with this particular complaint. >> we have to remember one thing. there's uncroupilous lawyers out there who will get other women
to join and jump on the bandwagon. so we have to be careful about the copycat aspect of it, too. as i said every woman's complaint should be taken seriously and investigated. but we all know there are unscrupulous lawyers who will try to find a second accuser and third accuser. >> let me say i agree there are copycat lawyers. it gives them the courage they need to report bad contact. >> i got to get this in. the justice department is already investigating whether they failed inform shareholders. does this play into that, and i mean how does this affect that? >> there's no question that the justice department investigation will have a big impact on fox's decision. they have to be very, very careful now because they as an institution have been accused of creating this kind of culture.
i'm only in my 60's. i've got a nice long life ahead. big plans. so when i found out medicare doesn't pay all my medical expenses, i got a medicare supplement insurance plan. [ male announcer ] if you're eligible for medicare, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. call now and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company.
like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, it could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call now to request your free decision guide. i've been with my doctor for 12 years. now i know i'll be able to stick with him. [ male announcer ] you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and virtually no referrals needed. see why millions of people have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp. don't wait. call now.
the candidate donald trump incite violence. three protesters claim that he did. they're suing his campaign. the judge denying motions to dismiss it. see for yourself what happened at the rally. >> get out. you know, in the old days, which isn't so long ago when we were less politically correct, that kind of stuff wouldn't happen. today we have to be so nice, so nice. we always have to be so nice. >> so joining me to now is the
protester in that video. and her attorney, daniel j. canon. good evening. thank you so much for coming on. >> hello. thanks for having us. >> so, we just saw the video showing you being pushed around and shoved by donald trump supporters at his rally. this past march. you say you attended the rally to protest peacefully. and the president can be heard yelling "get them out." >> i went there to protest peacefully and i definitely did remain peaceful the entire time i was in the rally. i pretty much worked my way through the crowd and got to a position toward the front of the stage. i held up a sign that i had made
that day. and as soon as i held up the sign, trump said get her out of here. get her out. and then the mob essentially turned on me and attacked me. they shoved me, they punched me, they cursed at me and yelled racist and sexist slurs at me the entire way until i was ejected. >> what were they saying to you? >> calling me names, racist slurs. sexist slurs. telling me that -- calling me scum. >> so what was going through your mind as all these men surrounded you pushing and shoving you while the president is shouting get out? >> i was completely taken back and not obviously not expecting that reaction at all. i was just really shocked, honestly. >> so, daniel, lawyers for president trump filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
they said president trump didn't intend for his supporters to use violence. trump's statement, "get them out of here," is protected by the first amendment. so is this is his free speech defense? >> yeah, obviously we think it's the right decision. and if you look at the history, there is no case decided by the supreme court or to my knowledge any other court that would allow a political candidate to turn an angry mom against peaceful protesters and say that's somehow protected by the first amendment. that's never been comp plated by any of our free speech juriss prudence. and those a reason those cases don't make it to the supreme court. and it's because they rarely happy. as i look at the political campaigns to have someone in the position where they're asking people to vote them in as leader of the free world and then to
have their supporters essentially turn on a dissenting voice simply in retaliation for peacefully protesting, that's unprecedented. and so we think that the court's decision reflects the idea that the first amendment doesn't tolerate that kind of behavior, and that we as a society are not going to tolerate it. >> so you said you mentioned peacefully protesting, daniel. you said you were looking for trouble because you did go to a rally to protest a candidate, and you were aapparently holding a sign depicting the president's head on a pig's body. >> sure. just like his supporters had a right to be there to show their support, i had every right to be there to show that i'm opposed to the trump administration or at the time the trump campaign and everything they set forth. >> so dan wrl, according to the
documents it is plaubl that trump's direction to get him out of here advakted the use of frs. it was an order, an instruction, a command. so the case is moving forward. what's the outcome you wanted? >> i think more than anything else we want to send a message in this case. the plaintiffs in this case want to send a message that for somebody who claims to be a political leader, somebody who would be a political leader to show that kind of intolerance for dissent and for peaceful protest, which an american tradition, will simply not be tolerated. and to ask a mob to turn against somebody simply for making their voice heard in the context of a campaign rally, something that's this important, something that would determine the president of the united states of america, potentially, to turn a crowd
against a dissenting voice in that context, really undermines the core principles of our democracy. >> if the president's listening right now, what would you say to him? >> i mean i don't really have much to say to him, to be honest. mostly, you know, that as much as he wants to get across his or imp element certain legislation there will be people to resist him every step of the way. >> and what do you say to the supporters in the crowd? >> i would say that they should, you know, think for themselves. and not, you know -- >> i meant the crowd that you're, not just the general. >> yeah, not participate in mob mentality and, you know, think critically. and don't believe everything you read, pretty much.
>> thank you. daniel, thank you. >> thank you. >> thanks. when we come right back i'm going to get my legal experts to weigh in on this case. muddlers are you one sneeze away from being voted out of the carpool? try zyrtec® it's starts working hard at hour one and works twice as hard when you take it again the next day. stick with zyrtec® and muddle no more®.
federal judge has ruled a lawsuit against trump can proceed. saying it's plausible that the candidate, candidate trump incited a riot. back again. so what do you think after hearing her story? >> the judge's decision is very similar to civil liberties. look, she had a right of free speech, and trump had a right to free speech. every single libitarian should be appalled at this decision. if the aclu doesn't get into this case. >> what about the people pushing her around? >> they should go to jail. thomas jefferson wrote a letter about a similar situation. in his letter he said don't go after the preacher. go after the people who were engaging in the violence. that's the american way. >> we all see the video.
but you say president trump was playing to his base and instoking racism and misogyny. >> trump new he could rile up his base, he could get these crowds worked up to a frenzy when he used certain language. some of it was cold language and some of it was blatant. and in this case he did this and the judge says, look, you had an obligation to provide a safe environment. you sponsored this event. you owed her a duty of care as you did everyone who was at this particular rally and potentially you failed. now, the judge hasn't ruled on theimators of this case. for this case to move forward, i think the judge made the right decision. he doesn't have the right to incite violence with his speech. he can't yell fire in a middle of a crowded theater. and you can't in this case yell
something where you know the room is crowded with white nationals, which is what's been reported, and you have an african-american peaceful protester which is what the allegation of these complaints are. we're all going to be watching. and maybe trump is to be deposed and we get to the bottomm of what he meant by that statement. >> some of the examples of the president that condone violence at his rallies. watch this. >> so if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, seriously. just kbauk the -- i promise you i will pay for the legal fees. i promise. i love the old days. in the old days they'd be carried out on a stretcher, folks. get out.
get out. in the old days, which isn't so long ago, when we were less -- today you have to be so nice, so nice. we always got to be so nice. get them out. hey, aren't trump rallies the most fun, right? >> so this is part of why the judge allowed this lawsuit to proceed. he look at all the comments that he made, that he said in the pas, and decided it was valid to geon with this case. what do you think? >> well, i think the judge's decision was right. at this stage based on the level of scrutiny that he has to give it, this case goes on. that doesn't mean it's ever going to necessarily get to a jury, but there's going to be
discovery. and in fact this judge referred it to the magistrate to do firth ardiscovery. and after they do that, then they'll come back and make another motion. part of the package just showed i don't think all of those sound bites were going on contemporaneously with this particular incident. >> discovery is exactly what's wrong with this case because it then chills the exercise of free speech. if we had a speech where he had knock the crap out of him and then somebody immediately knocked the crap out of somebody, that would be a classic incitement case. but what he said that led perhaps to the pushing and shoving is so ambiguous that it's protected by free speech. and this is the time for the judge to throw it. >> you said politicians are allowed to stimulate the crowd. but when you watch these videos you hear president then
candidate trump repeating get them out or knock them out. isn't that explicitly encouraging violence? >> i want to throw a challenge to the american civil liberties union. if this were not donald trump, the aclu would be in there fighting for the right for that person to express his view to the crowd. but because it's donald trump, the american civil liberties union will not get into this case. >> do you agree with that? you said it's his duty to provide adequate security and control of the crowd when violence is foreseeable. >> absolutely. and that was what was planted in this lawsuit. the judge looked and said, look, if there's enough plausible claims for this lawsuit to move forward. now, after the statement is
completed if -- but when i look at that video and i look at what trump did repeatedly throughout the election which is to rile up his base and to encourage them to engage in violence. >> i've got to jump in quickly. i have very little time. what about the other people in the crowd? are they in more legal trouble than possibly the president? >> yeah, there's no reason in the world that the guys in the crowd shouldn't be criminally charged. it's on tape. they've got a defense. they claim she hit them first, but that's a criminal case. >> because remember the judge said they were not his agents. that's what dooms the case. if they were not his agents and the judge made that as a finding, then he cannot be held responsible for making vague, general protected statements. >> all the judge did, allan, was threw out the vicarious action.
>> got to go. got to go. >> thank you all. when we come back why some police say a decrease in crime reports may actually be dangerous. growing up, we were german. we danced in a german dance group. i wore lederhosen. when i first got on ancestry i was really surprised that i wasn't finding all of these germans in my tree. i decided to have my dna tested through ancestry dna. the big surprise was we're not german at all. 52% of my dna comes from scotland and ireland. so, i traded in my lederhosen for a kilt. ancestry has many paths to discovering your story. get started for free at ancestry.com. pabut with odor free blue-emu continuous pain relief spray, i can box out any muscle or joint pain immediately. blue-emu continuous pain relief spray, it works fast and you won't stink. does your makeup remover every kiss-proof,ff?
the trump administration's crack down on undocumented immigrants appears to be having an unintended side effectt that's worrying law enforcement officials. >> reporter: it is almost unheard of for a police chief to tell the public that a decrease in crime reports may actually be a dangerous trend. but that is exactly what's happening in one of america's biggest cities. >> in los angeles domestic violence reports are down 10% in the hispanic community. 10%. imagine somebody being a victim of domestic violence and not calling the police because they're afraid that their family will be torn asunder because of immigration enforcement. >> reporter: what's even more alarming, he said, reports of tape dropped 25% in the latino community compared to the same time last year. the fear that crime isn't
actually drupping but victims are too scared to report it. >> there's no direct nexus to it, but there is a strong correlation. >> reporter: but in denver the city attorney says she has seen a director link. >> all four were latina. and all four contacted our office to let our office know they weren't willing to proceed with the case for fear of doportation. >> reporter: the woman not so much afraid to face their alleged attacker but instead of this. isoagies waiting. local law enforcement officer worried about the potential impact on witnesses and victims. >> we are worried crime will go
unpunished. >> reporter: according to i.c.e. policy courts are fair game. still, their actions are having a chilling effect on victims, too. >> where are you afraid to go now? >> translator: the courts. it frightens me to think that just by going there immigration might get me. >> reporter: he was never charged, but now she's even more terrified when she leaves her home. >> translator: every single day i think about this. my daughter said, mom, i'm afraid when you pick-me-up from school, immigration will be there. >> reporter: we're only talking about the first three months of the career, so hard to tell if there's a larger trend here.
secondly, i.c.e. agents did end up in courts. but they largely stopped in 2013 after i.c.e. agents arrested some woman who had gone to court to get some restraining orders. sarah, snider cnn los angeles. >> thank you, sarah. the story of a deadly disease could turn into the next global pandemic. that's friday night at 9 which knowene eastern and pacific. hey allergy muddlers
the whole country booking on choice hotels.com. four words, badda book. badda boom... let it sink in. shouldn't we say we have the lowest price? nope, badda book. badda boom. have you ever stayed with choice hotels? like at a comfort inn? yep. free waffles, can't go wrong. i like it. promote that guy. get the lowest price on our rooms, guaranteed. when you book direct at choicehotels.com. book now.
. reports about a top obama official unmasking associates of president trump drawing a twitter storm of the commander in chief. but the difference between unmasking and what's not getting lost in translation. >> the confirmation of neil gorsuch. the democrats have enough to sustain a filibuster. and an attorney general reviewing all police reforms nationwide. what this